TL;DR
The Allegory at the Centre of the Controversy
James Gunn’s much-anticipated Superman reboot is drawing unexpected fire—not for its plot, but for its perceived politics. The film introduces a fictional border conflict between two countries: Boravia, a wealthy, militarised state supported by the US, and Jarhanpur, a poorer neighbouring nation whose civilians face repeated airstrikes and forced displacement.
To many critics and viewers, the imagery is unmistakable: Boravia resembles Israel; Jarhanpur, Palestine. The moral framing of the conflict—military might versus civilian suffering—has ignited a firestorm online, especially as the film arrives amid ongoing real-world violence in Gaza.
What Audiences Are Saying
Across social media, audiences have called the film “openly anti-Israel,” with posts like: “Y’all were not kidding about how anti-Israel and pro-Palestine that Superman movie was… they were not slick with it AT ALL.”
Others have praised the film for “taking a stand” in what they see as a David vs Goliath morality tale. In particular, the film’s refugee camp scenes and its depiction of white-suited Boravian soldiers firing on fleeing civilians has led to fierce comparisons with IDF footage from Gaza.
Arab media outlets from Dawn to The New Arab have amplified these readings, while pro-Israel commentators have condemned the film as “propaganda in a cape.”
What the Filmmakers Say
Director James Gunn has flatly denied that the film has any direct real-world allegory. In an interview earlier this month, he said: “When I wrote this the Middle Eastern conflict wasn't happening. So I tried to do little things to move it away from that, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the Middle East. ... It really is fictional.” Gunn says the film is about Superman’s struggle to remain moral in a morally grey world, not a political commentary on the Middle East. His defenders argue the film’s real theme is immigration, not occupation.
But critics argue that intent doesn’t matter when the imagery is this pointed.
Moses, Jesus and Ubermensch
In the past, Superman has been widely compared to both Moses and Jesus, with his origin story echoing Moses as a baby sent away from a dying world to be raised by strangers, and his life on Earth reflecting Christ-like motifs—an only son sent by a father, performing miracles, sacrificing himself, and symbolically resurrecting. At the same time, some have interpreted Superman through a Nietzschean lens, casting him as a kind of Übermensch—a being who transcends human limitations. Yet this comparison remains contested: while he possesses godlike powers, Superman doesn’t forge new values like Nietzsche’s ideal but instead adheres to a strict moral code rooted in traditional human ethics. This tension—between godhood and goodness, destiny and choice—has kept Superman hovering between myth, morality, and modern philosophy for nearly a century.
Why This Matters
The Superman controversy underscores a broader cultural war over art and politics—especially in Hollywood, where creators are increasingly accused of embedding political messages into superhero narratives.
To Israel’s supporters, the film is part of a creeping normalisation of anti-Israel sentiment in Western culture. To critics of Israel’s actions in Gaza, the film merely reflects what journalists and humanitarian organisations have been documenting for months.
FAQ
Is the film explicitly about Israel and Palestine?
No. The movie features fictional countries—Boravia and Jarhanpur—and makes no direct reference to Israel or Gaza.
Why do people think it is about Israel?
The visual parallels are striking: a powerful, Western-backed nation using overwhelming force on a neighbouring population with fewer resources, often civilians. The timing of the release, during the Gaza war, amplified those associations.
Has there been backlash?
Yes. Pro-Israel groups have criticised the film, while many Arab and pro-Palestinian voices have praised it for supposedly taking a moral stand.
Is this unusual for superhero films?
Increasingly less so. Modern superhero films often grapple with real-world issues—immigration, surveillance, civil liberties—but allegories about active geopolitical conflicts remain controversial.
Final Word
Whether it was intentional or not, Superman has entered the Israel–Palestine debate through the back door of allegory. And like all superhero stories, this one too is being read less as fantasy—and more as a mirror to the world outside the screen.
- Superman sparks backlash: The new Superman film is accused of portraying Israel negatively through allegorical storytelling.
- Fictional war, real parallels: Viewers say the fictional conflict between Boravia and Jarhanpur mirrors the Israel–Gaza war.
- Filmmakers deny intent: Director James Gunn insists no real-world countries were referenced—but critics aren't convinced.
- Social media erupts: Posts praising the film’s perceived pro-Palestinian message have gone viral, fueling debate.
The Allegory at the Centre of the Controversy
James Gunn’s much-anticipated Superman reboot is drawing unexpected fire—not for its plot, but for its perceived politics. The film introduces a fictional border conflict between two countries: Boravia, a wealthy, militarised state supported by the US, and Jarhanpur, a poorer neighbouring nation whose civilians face repeated airstrikes and forced displacement.
To many critics and viewers, the imagery is unmistakable: Boravia resembles Israel; Jarhanpur, Palestine. The moral framing of the conflict—military might versus civilian suffering—has ignited a firestorm online, especially as the film arrives amid ongoing real-world violence in Gaza.
What Audiences Are Saying
Across social media, audiences have called the film “openly anti-Israel,” with posts like: “Y’all were not kidding about how anti-Israel and pro-Palestine that Superman movie was… they were not slick with it AT ALL.”
I can't believe James Gunn managed to give a wave of literal middle fingers to Israel in a Superman movie. It was so unafraid and in your face with its messaging I couldn't help but smile the entire time pic.twitter.com/60YVDQBVOu
— Oblivious (@oblivibum) July 12, 2025
Others have praised the film for “taking a stand” in what they see as a David vs Goliath morality tale. In particular, the film’s refugee camp scenes and its depiction of white-suited Boravian soldiers firing on fleeing civilians has led to fierce comparisons with IDF footage from Gaza.
Arab media outlets from Dawn to The New Arab have amplified these readings, while pro-Israel commentators have condemned the film as “propaganda in a cape.”
What the Filmmakers Say
Director James Gunn has flatly denied that the film has any direct real-world allegory. In an interview earlier this month, he said: “When I wrote this the Middle Eastern conflict wasn't happening. So I tried to do little things to move it away from that, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the Middle East. ... It really is fictional.” Gunn says the film is about Superman’s struggle to remain moral in a morally grey world, not a political commentary on the Middle East. His defenders argue the film’s real theme is immigration, not occupation.
But critics argue that intent doesn’t matter when the imagery is this pointed.
Moses, Jesus and Ubermensch
In the past, Superman has been widely compared to both Moses and Jesus, with his origin story echoing Moses as a baby sent away from a dying world to be raised by strangers, and his life on Earth reflecting Christ-like motifs—an only son sent by a father, performing miracles, sacrificing himself, and symbolically resurrecting. At the same time, some have interpreted Superman through a Nietzschean lens, casting him as a kind of Übermensch—a being who transcends human limitations. Yet this comparison remains contested: while he possesses godlike powers, Superman doesn’t forge new values like Nietzsche’s ideal but instead adheres to a strict moral code rooted in traditional human ethics. This tension—between godhood and goodness, destiny and choice—has kept Superman hovering between myth, morality, and modern philosophy for nearly a century.
Why This Matters
The Superman controversy underscores a broader cultural war over art and politics—especially in Hollywood, where creators are increasingly accused of embedding political messages into superhero narratives.
To Israel’s supporters, the film is part of a creeping normalisation of anti-Israel sentiment in Western culture. To critics of Israel’s actions in Gaza, the film merely reflects what journalists and humanitarian organisations have been documenting for months.
FAQ
Is the film explicitly about Israel and Palestine?
No. The movie features fictional countries—Boravia and Jarhanpur—and makes no direct reference to Israel or Gaza.
Why do people think it is about Israel?
The visual parallels are striking: a powerful, Western-backed nation using overwhelming force on a neighbouring population with fewer resources, often civilians. The timing of the release, during the Gaza war, amplified those associations.
Has there been backlash?
Yes. Pro-Israel groups have criticised the film, while many Arab and pro-Palestinian voices have praised it for supposedly taking a moral stand.
Is this unusual for superhero films?
Increasingly less so. Modern superhero films often grapple with real-world issues—immigration, surveillance, civil liberties—but allegories about active geopolitical conflicts remain controversial.
Final Word
Whether it was intentional or not, Superman has entered the Israel–Palestine debate through the back door of allegory. And like all superhero stories, this one too is being read less as fantasy—and more as a mirror to the world outside the screen.
You may also like
Ex MasterChef star John Torode breaks his silence after BBC axe over racism allegation
Two Brit tourists die in Algarve after jumping into pool after night out
ROS WYNNE JONES: 'Every Afghan hero deserves a UK passport. This country has failed them'
Popular paint colour makes your home feel 'cold and lifeless' - everyone should avoid
Radar Festival in Manchester thrives amid controversy and last-minute lineup changes
